[LEAPSECS] nails in the coffin of mean solar time

[Tom Van Baak]

> Doesn't that work in the other direction as well? Can't computer folk

> say "we can live with leapseconds if you give us $N to handle it?" You

> might get some nice upgrades to hardware out of this. . . 


Yes, it does work in the other direction. But are both sides equal?

Here's one way to consider the question. In the 1960's when
leap seconds were first proposed how many astronomers and
how many DUT1-impacted telescope installations were there?
I don't have numbers, maybe some of you know, but I'd guess
hundreds. Maybe even thousands?

In the same era, how many computer systems, networks, atomic
clocks, or other leapsecond-impacted, precise timing related
technologies were there? Hundreds? Perhaps even less.

OK, fast forward through the last 40 years. Now how many
astronomers and how many DUT1-impacted telescope
installations were there? Does someone have numbers? Still
hundreds or maybe thousands?

But compared to the 1960's how many computer systems,
networks, atomic clocks, or other leapsecond-impacted precise
timing related technologies are there now? Not just hundreds
anymore, but hundreds of thousands, or millions? If you count
PC's and cell phones: billions.

I know this is handwaving, but the point is the footprint of the
"two camps" is very different today than it was when leap seconds
were adopted and it's not clear to me the same arguments that
were used in the 1960's are equally valid today.

/tvb